About 10 years ago, I drove for two hours to pay my daughters a surprise visit at their summer camp. Almost nothing was better than seeing their smiling faces every time we “visited” each other (moms don't visit their children). When I arrived, I went immediately to see the camp director. I told him that, as a divorced father, I missed my girls very much and wanted to have a quick visit with them, even take them out to lunch. He told me he would have to get “permission” from their mother. Permission to see my own kids? He placed a call to my ex but couldn't locate her. I felt lower than dirt but refused to leave the premises without seeing my girls. Ultimately, I prevailed. I then asked Herr Director if he could imagine how humiliating that whole exchange had been for me. He admitted, with awkwardness, that he couldn't. Would he have treated a mother similarly? Never. In America's eyes, mothers are noble; fathers are trivial.
My painful experience epitomizes what millions of fathers face every day -- in 2008 -- in custody and visitation conflicts, despite the feminist stereotype, which the media willingly perpetuate, that men are uncaring, aloof, incompetent parents. Simply put, America moronizes and marginalizes men. Nowhere is this more obvious and symbolic than in TV commercials, as I explained in “Misandry on Madison Avenue.” Many married and never-married men don't grasp this reality, even reject it. It pains me every time men laugh at father-bashing TV commercials. In an ironic turnabout, however, their perspectives change, almost overnight, when they get divorced and face custody battles of their own.
Given the 50% divorce rate and 40% -- and rapidly growing -- out-of-wedlock birthrate, men get the short end of the financial stick. But, mysteriously, they keep electing and reelecting the politicians who stick it to them. Men must end this self-defeating behavior by demanding representation to justify the enormous taxation.
Isn't it time to have a Boston Tea Party for Men? You bet it is. The original Boston Tea Party, in 1773, was a protest over the Stamp Act, which required Colonists to pay tariffs to the Crown without any representation in Parliament. Well, 235 years later, American men are getting stampeded, ignored, stripped of rights, and required to pay gynotariffs (alimony, child support for maternity and paternity fraud, ex-wives' attorneys' fees, financial support of anti-male legislation and organizations, etc.) -- without political representation in any local, state, or federal branch of government.
Men comprise 46%, or 117.3M, of the electorate. Yet, the Republicans -- ironically, most of them fathers -- don't give a damn about men's civil and parental rights. Republicans ignore, in fact snub, men. Have you ever heard a Republican decry the presumed guilt of the falsely accused Duke lacrosse players, or the presumed innocence of their unprosecuted accuser, Crystal Gail Mangum? Of course not -- even though a false rape accusation is a crime. Had these Duke boys not been from families of means, able to expose the female bias in our so-called justice system, they would have sat in prison for years. Last week, a California judge, following the California Supreme Court's ruling, ordered Tyna Marie Robertson to pay Michael Flatley $11M because she falsely accused the Riverdancer of rape and attempted to extort money from him. Again, had Flatley not been a man of means, he would have been unable to expose the female bias in our so-called justice system. How many Republicans have condemned this female bias?
Henpecked Mamas' Boys
On January 3, 2008, Iowans will determine whether Giuliani, Huckabee, McCain, or Romney is the best candidate to face the victorious Gynocrat, with all likelihood Hillary Clinton, in November 2008. On what basis will these voters make their choice? I have no idea. They watch, with fatigue, as the Republicans bash each other over regurgitated issues: who's most Christian, who's most Reaganesque, taxes, fiscal restraint, border enforcement, education, crime, abortion, healthcare, illegal immigration, terrorism, yada, yada, yada. Yet, there's a perennially untouched issue -- vital to the fabric of our society -- that these gutless, henpecked mamas' boys feel is too taboo to acknowledge, let alone discuss: men's rights.
Imagine presidential candidates having the audacity to claim pro-family credentials while completely ignoring men. I fully expect the Gynocrats -- Clinton, Edwards, and Obama -- to snub men. It's what they do. A gynocracy can't thrive without Gynocrats, who blindly, reflexively, and unilaterally support women. It's no secret that the Gynocrats are beholden to the feminists at NOW. But, what shocks me is that the Republicans, who always promise to appoint strict constructionists to the Supreme Court, are AWOL during any constitutional argument about men.
By sidestepping the 14th Amendment, which provides for equal protection under the law (meaning that no group can be preferred over another group), henpecked Republican legislators, judges, justices, and presidents have allowed anti-male, pro-female laws -- such as Roe v. Wade and VAWA -- to exist and flourish. For example, the Department of Justice runs the Office on Violence Against Women, with an annual budget of $400M -- even though studies from Harvard Medical School and numerous other organizations show that women cause at least 50% of domestic violence. Where's the justice here? When it comes to women, men in government ignore the Constitution. Consequently, the entire judicial system has morphed into a gynojudicial system. Instead of representing the unbiased moral underpinning of America's legal system, Lady Justice -- reconstituted as Lady GynoJustice -- now rules it.
How did this happen? Easy. Most men -- including Congressmen -- defer to women, especially since 1973, the year of the Roe v. Wade decision. Republicans talk tough about dealing with illegal aliens but pathetically shrink in the presence of their wives and girlfriends. To wit: In a recent appearance on Fox News Channel's Your World with Neil Cavuto, I debated Lis Wiehl about why women feel entitled to receive nice Christmas gifts, while men feel “lucky” to get them. If a man's inclination is to purchase his wife's happiness, silence, and affection, why wouldn't he do likewise for his female constituents, and NOW's radical feminists, by endorsing unconstitutional Senate bills like VAWA reauthorization?
A mama's boy moves through adolescence and then to adulthood and into his occupation believing that women are superior beings. That insecurity dominates his every thought, activity, and decision. So, it should not be too difficult, then, to fathom why the typical Republican can't stand up to women: his back aches from placing so many of them on pedestals. The result of male politicians constantly and obsequiously currying favor with women -- either to assuage their own male guilt or to collect votes, or both -- is that the USA has become a gynocracy, its flag flapping proudly in the deferential breeze atop state and federal buildings all across America.
Romney's True Colors
Two weeks ago, I published “How Mitt Can Beat Rudy,” a blueprint for Mitt Romney to differentiate himself from Rudy Giuliani and rise above the Republican pack by becoming the only candidate to champion fathers' rights. I made sure he received this article. No feedback. Now, I know why. On December 23rd, Romney showed his true colors on a campaign stop at Nonni's Italian Eatery in Hillsborough, NH, where a well-placed contact initiated the following exchange:
To Mitt Romney: “It's been widely reported that the candidate leading the race for the presidency of the United States is a spousal abuser. Numerous reputable sources have reported that Hillary Clinton has thrown lamps, ash trays, and other objects at her husband's head, and that he has been injured by his wife in domestic disputes.
“In addition, a New Mexico judge granted a restraining order against David Letterman, based on a woman's claim that Letterman was harassing her with subliminal messages in his television appearances. As a result of the Violence Against Women Act and current domestic-violence policy, the judicial oversight in this case amounted to verification that the form was filled out properly, with no consideration of the veracity of the claims. This type of judicial oversight is practiced in many states.
“Will you pledge to oppose reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act and similar domestic-violence legislation without provisions to prevent the issuance of restraining orders based on false claims?”
Romney said he wouldn't and then asked the questioner what he'd do about it. Answer: “I'd veto further VAWA and VAWA-related legislation unless it: 1) incorporates provisions and funding to address the way in which false claims are being used to exploit the legislation, and 2) is reformed and funded to reflect the well-documented female commission of domestic violence at higher rates than men.”
According to the account, Mitt Romney got bored, started looking around the room, and, while walking away, said: “False accusations; that's tough.”
“False accusations; that's tough.” This is Mitt Romney's answer? It's insulting ... and revealing. A false accusation is a crime. Did Romney not learn this at Harvard Law School? Did he not enforce it as governor of Massachusetts? His response was akin to saying: “Men should just take abuse and get over it.” Now, if one of Romney's sons gets nailed with a false rape accusation, I'll bet he'll change his I-don't-care-about-men tune in a heartbeat. The sad part is that Romney's rivals are no better. So, any American man who believes he has representation in exchange for his taxation is a naive fool.
The NoNonsense Bottom Line
The Iowa caucus is just days away now. It's too late to force the Republicans to address men's rights in the Hawkeye State. But the Boston Tea Party for Men must start immediately thereafter. The era of taxation without representation is over. While throwing tea into Boston Harbor isn't the solution, in 2008, throwing down the men's rights gauntlet is the solution. Republicans must be forced to understand that no support of men means no votes from men.
My recommendation: overload the campaigns of Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, and Mitt Romeny with e-mails, letters, and calls. And, because Fox News Channel is the only network of real influence in American politics, make your feelings known to yourcomments@foxnews.com. Encourage FNC to dog and dog and dog the Republicans, stick microphones in their faces, and compel them to articulate their stances on men's rights. Impotent, cavalier answers like Romney's are totally unacceptable.
Unless men mimic the tactics of feminists, they won't create the swath of feminists. By remaining silent, men will see the gutless GOP continue to snub them, the gynocratic flag continue to fly, and Lady GynoJustice continue to rule. Instead, invite the Republicans to The Boston Tea Party for Men. Attendance is mandatory. We'll be holding the Oval Office raffle there.
About the Author
Marc H. Rudov is an internationally recognized radio/TV personality and author of 70+ articles and the books Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables™ (ISBN 9780974501727), and The Man's No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth™ (ISBN 0974501719). Mr. Rudov is a regular guest on Fox News Channel's Your World with Neil Cavuto .Rudov's books, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.
Copyright © 2007 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.
PolishKnight said,
I also wonder if SpikeTV would be interested in doing “men’s issues” commercials.
December 26, 2007 at 12:05 pm
NotNOW said,
The gloves absolutely must come off. Someone else on MND recently replied to an article that men must become willing to offend women. Chivalry absolutely must die. Either IT dies, or WE do.
December 26, 2007 at 1:04 pm
mruffolo said,
The divorce industry, along with its army of Woman Against Violence, Child Support, and Battered Women Center employees, that includes legislators, lawyers, and media, ought to be put on notice.
Striping men who are legally innocent of basic rights to be a father, earn a living, among other things, is wrong.
Clearly, if a man never gets divorced and or has children, then he is unaffected. Fathers of intact families are not restricted by the government like divorced dads are.
The first thing we ought to do to is get rid of each feminist.
One way or another, the machinery that Republicans and Democrats have built to oppress fathers ought to be dismantled.
That this cause is right. Fighting for justice of men, many who are poor, imprisoned, seperated from their family against their will, without cause or notice. The time to fight is at hand.
Leaders ought to step up to take fatherhood and family back from the tyrants.
December 26, 2007 at 1:32 pm
mruffolo said,
Each is responsible for the fight, but we ought not to act independently - many are mightier than one.
Senting persuasive emails is a great start.
December 26, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Robert Stevens said,
iF a few of these “gutless politicians” lose their jobs because they failed to support change, then I think we will get the message across.
This will require a leader, someone of the calibre of Martin Luther King.
Someone everyone will follow. A Man or it could concievably be a woman, with great vision. Someone who sees the finished product, who can imagine the day this horrible racket it gone. Someone who has a dream!
December 26, 2007 at 2:03 pm
lieweary said,
I don’t agree at all about Roe V. Wade, however. The Redumblicans have always attacked abortion. Similarly, they’re vocal on such pressing issues as illegal immigration, gay marriage (mirage?), pornography, flag-burning, the War on Christmas, and the horrible problem of occultism in Harry Potter books. But they’ll never say anything about moral issues that MATTER, such as the anti-male corruption of our family court system. They care about aborted fetuses, but not about the children who have been victimized by feminism.
The feminists have succeeded in defining crime as a problem caused exclusively by men, and the Redumblicans can’t let themselves look soft on crime, can they? And don’t hold your breath waiting for them to explain that the social chaos that feminism has caused is a much worse problem than crime.
December 26, 2007 at 2:05 pm
lieweary said,
December 26, 2007 at 2:06 pm
PolishKnight said,
There are plenty of men who are restricted by the government without being married: Men with bastard children, for example. It’s ironic that the leftist men who rally around abortion rights (often because they want women to be slutty) are the ones slapped with a paternity suit by women who decide that “choice” is not for them.
In addition, there’s sexual harassment legislation which threatens men with losing their job for slipping up and saying the wrong this. These laws essentially require men to live in a state of probation watching their every move at work, and at home, and having to view women as a threat.
Many conservative men I know are scared of their wives (who are often liberal leaning) because they worry about divorce so even without divorce, these men live with a sword of demacles hanging over their head.
Men can’t use the same strategies of the feminists or materialistic women since these women milked chivalrous sentiment even as they decried themselves as victims of that same chivarly. Crying like a girl won’t work for men (although it is useful to expose feminist hyprocrisies for “equal treatment”.) “Whatever happened to ‘ladies first’?” “Whatever happened to ‘equal treatment’” — The Incredibles.
December 26, 2007 at 2:23 pm
college activist said,
call it the…. Boston He party!!!
December 26, 2007 at 2:49 pm
fourthwire said,
There are quite a few “nutless wonders” among men, whose fear of standing up for themselves is truly pathetic.
And those men are little better than anchors and accomplices to those individuals who prefer the status quo - the gynocracy.
Me, I have no qualms, fears, or even apprehensions about offending women and their misguided chivalrist, vaginized sycophants.
Like Denis, Zed, and other well-read, intelligent MEN posting on MensNewsDaily.com I strongly believe that……..
……..it’s time to take the kid gloves off and tell our politicians, the feminazis, and any women interested in maintaining their superiority of rights: ENOUGH!……. THESE INJUSTICES MUST STOP RIGHT NOW!!!
December 26, 2007 at 4:38 pm
donnieboy57 said,
it’s too late for speeches. know one is listening except ourselves. just what is the hit count on mnd? drudge gets 15-20 million hits “a day”. i see the same men posting day after week after month after year. yak yak yak. more men watch oparah & the view than rudov & weihl. hell, half the men i talk to are afraid even look at a men’s site for fear of the women in their life.
we need a leader alright. we need a spartacus or we should just quit living a life of delusion and cover our own asses…………………………. and very quickly. november of ‘08 comes to mind. not that i am in a negative mood or anything.
at least women stick together for strength. give ‘em that.
December 26, 2007 at 7:30 pm
lieweary said,
Anyway, don’t be too pessimistic. There’s a very large pool of potential support out there– men getting shafted in family court and falsely prosecuted right and left. Reach THOSE people, not the typical henpecked American sissy, and you just might find yourself with a political base.
NOW most likely has less than 250,000 members, and plenty of those don’t do much other than pay their dues. You don’t need that many men to make a huge difference, and there are lots of pissed off men out there.
December 26, 2007 at 8:06 pm
Marc H. Rudov said,
Do men have a leader telling them to watch Oprah or The View? No. They just do it by choice.
I hate it when men say, I’ll be powerful someday if only someone would lead me. Lead yourself. Do the right thing.
If every man grows a pair, we can swing an election. Try it. Take action. Today.
December 26, 2007 at 8:12 pm
tonysprout said,
Marc, you write well, but it’s all been said, over and over. However, I will write Fox news, politely.
It’s a shame, they beat us over the head with the Constitution, forgetting that the Bill of Rights therein was written to protect individual rights. In their tiny little minds, the rights of so-called protected classes are MORE important.
December 26, 2007 at 8:22 pm
lieweary said,
December 26, 2007 at 8:34 pm
college activist said,
These myn have to lose this fear somehow!!..
maybe the weaker men can get started on their road to courage by simply taking a baby step..Just tell a friend or co-worker about these websites..
December 26, 2007 at 9:41 pm
amfortas said,
I think you will freeze over like Hell if you wait for any of the current crop of Politicians to stand up for men’s rights. That is how it is seen: men’s rights. It should, of course, be seen as equality before the law and an eradication of privilege.
Maybe John Brown is a more apt historical character than any Boston Tea Party revolutionary. What the MRM, the nation, needs is a MAN, as you said, to DO something, be a leader, make the personal sacrifice. I would be behind such a chap. You would too. Many, many people would rush to join him.
You and I often get on each others tits, I know, but maybe you could upstage me and knock me off my perch. I have put myself up for President, on the ‘durn furriner’ ticket, and had an interview right here on MND.
Is this just me being flippant? Silly? Or do you perhaps glean that there is some reason I constantly append - “Vote #1 Amfortas” ?
I am waiting for an American, a man who isn’t a gnome, a chap with his dander up, a clear voice and a presence, not a politician, who will stand in my stead.
Why not you, Marc? You could announce your candidacy on your TV spot. Afraid of ridicule? Don’t be. Someone has to grab the banner, or preferably the Standard, and hoist it above the crowds so others see it. You have strong arms.
You have no chance of winning of course, but then you don’t want to be President. But it is a way of gaining National Prominence for the arguments. YOU, or someone like you, HAS to get these vital matters into the public debate. You may not get to be President, but who knows, your shoulders could be just the thing for a Gnome to stand on.
Vote #1 Amfortas. Or give me your shoulders.
December 26, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Denis said,
thank you for writing this! Astute observations as usual. Hell yes, it is WAY past time for a Boston Tea Party. I want to comment more but I’m spending the holiday season out of country with lovely and feminine (and non-fat) American women and will return to MND at a future time. Happy holidays to all my brothers.
December 26, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Denis said,
“I’m spending the holiday season out of country with lovely and feminine (and non-fat) NON-American women.
December 26, 2007 at 10:30 pm
David R. Usher said,
Republicans have been political idiots since 1996. They keep thinking that feminists and women will vote for them if they pander to radical feminism. They think that men don’t notice. The fact is, most women and most men know that institutional feminism is a very bad thing. Republicans will continue losing elections until they have the simple courage to do the right thing. Institutional feminists don’t have the votes or the clout to do a damned thing about it. NOW’s membership isn’t even 1/2 million any more. — not remotely large enough to counter the intelligent mainstream values vote that doesn’t give a damn what radical feminists want.
I am still working with one presidential candidate. It is possible we might see some action, particularly if Romney’s recent mistake hurts him in either Iowa or NH.
December 26, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Rinaldo Del Gallo, III said,
To Marc and anyone else that would care to listen:
I have not had much time to write but in 2002 I supported Massachusetts Democrat Shannon O’Brien when she supported shared parenting legislation and then candidate Mitt Romney refused to take a stand on the issue. I personally met Mr. Romney at one of his campaign celebrations after a debate, and he said that the issue would have to wait “until after the election.” He gave me the car of one of his aids. In 2004, I was part of an effort that put on non-binding public policy question on the ballot in about 25% of all jurisdictions. We learned that 86% of the population supported shared parenting legislation. Despite this, Governor Romney refused to meet with Massachusetts father’s rights groups. That day “after the election” never came. Some Republican father’s rights activist foolishly supported him.
Candidate John McCain’s response to a question about shared parenting is well known and need not have further elaboration. Read David Usher’s McCain’s Tar Baby is Bigger Than Race for more information.
Today, current Democratic Governor Deval Patrick openly supports shared parenting.
For more information about Governor Romney and shared parenting, please feel free to call me.
By the way, good essay.
Rinaldo Del Gallo
BerkshireFatherhood.com
413-445-6789
December 26, 2007 at 11:14 pm
Rinaldo Del Gallo, III said,
I participated in a “Boston Tea Party for Men” by joining a Fathers-4-Justice Rally.
http://www.berkshirefatherhood.com/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01articleid=77&cntnt01returnid=69
December 26, 2007 at 11:21 pm
college activist said,
maybe you could do a piece on it for MND…with a sound linc to the video…
December 26, 2007 at 11:48 pm
TheManOnTheStreet said,
TMOTS
December 27, 2007 at 7:30 am
mruffolo said,
“Pakistan opposition leader Benazir Bhutto was assassinated in a suicide attack on Thursday, just two months after the former premier returned from exile for a political comeback.
Bhutto, educated at Oxford and Harvard, became the first female prime minister of a Muslim country when she took the helm in Pakistan in 1988.”
http://www.afp.com/english/news/stories/071227143327.ehma07ne.html
“Pakistan is a notably patriarchal society.”
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007/07/18/story_18-7-2007_pg7_22
December 27, 2007 at 11:41 am
conservativation said,
This Marc is a save it article…one of the best ones, and though I already knew this, can show those in the margins that you are bloody serious….we here as said know that.
What a mess to watch elections come and go with candidates less informed than say your neighbor across the friggin fence.
December 27, 2007 at 12:18 pm
mruffolo said,
Look at great movements, look at great organizations, it starts with a cause, then builds with great leadership and followship.
Before December 1773 though the national and local papers did not write about taxation without representation (Stamp Act of 1765 and Townshend Acts of 1767), on Thursday, December 16, 1773, Samuel Adams said to a few men, “This meeting can do nothing more to save the country”. With small hatchets and clubs, the men headed toward Griffin’s Wharf.
Casks were opened and tea dumped overboard; the work, lasting well into the night, was quick, thorough, and efficient. By dawn, over 342 casks or 90,000 lbs (45 tons) of tea worth an estimated £10,000 had been consigned to waters of Boston harbor. Nothing else had been damaged or stolen, except a single padlock accidentally broken and anonymously replaced not long thereafter.
Benjamin Franklin stated that the destroyed tea must be repaid, and he offered to repay with his own money. However, a number of colonists were inspired to carry out similar acts, such as the burning of the Peggy Stewart.
The Boston Tea Party eventually proved to be one of the many catalysts which led to the American Revolutionary War. At the very least, the Boston Tea Party and the reaction that followed served to rally support for revolutionaries in the thirteen colonies who were eventually successful in their fight for independence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/teaparty.htm
There are similarities with divorced dad’s divorce tax (child support and add on support; loss of property) and loss of freedom/rights (unilateral and no-fault divorce; incarceration without due process or legal representation - Violence Against Women’s Act and Child Support Recovery Act; secrete and powerful family court, women’s right to kill men’s children - abortion; paternity fraud against men).
The criminlization of divorced dads, who are legally innocent, is unjust and common. Feminism, while opportunistic for women, is cruel, unfair, and destructive against divorced dads, children, and family. Today men do not get repersentation from legislators.
I too tire of just talk, but acting individually will not spark a revolution. A coordinated well plan of action has a better chance of success.
I observe that F4J of the UK, a small group of men with strong leadership and clear mission, has been effective to create awareness. Based on national media coverage of their message, I sense that they’re doing a better job there, than we are here.
December 27, 2007 at 1:03 pm
lieweary said,
December 27, 2007 at 1:09 pm
metalman said,
December 28, 2007 at 11:23 am
Roger F. Gay said,
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/11/07/three-election-pledges/
I pledge not to support or vote for a candidate that does not openly promise to fight for effective policy changes for restoring the institution of family and individual rights. We are – or at least have been in ways that matter – a nation of laws under constitutional rule. I pledge not to waste my vote on anyone who I do not believe will lead the positive change back to constitutional rule.
December 28, 2007 at 11:36 am
lieweary said,
December 28, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Marc H. Rudov said,
December 28, 2007 at 8:13 pm
lieweary said,
December 29, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Tristan said,
Ron Paul therefore can be distinguished from all the other Republican candidates and that is part of the reason I am supporting his bid for president.
January 1, 2008 at 11:49 am
mruffolo said,
Good afternoon.
I observe that you have no position on stopping the destruction of family by divorce court.
That America has one of the highest divorce rates in the world of about 220 countries. That, among other things, about 1.3 million men and over 2 million children per year are adversely affected by divorce. For example, though the men are legally innocent, without due process, he will lose his kids, 18 years of income, property, and certain liberties by court order.
The consequence is injustice and a weakened America, and I do not want that.
I want you to fight against injustice of divorce court against fathers and children.
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=ContactUs.Home
http://obama.senate.gov/contact
http://www.mittromney.com/ContactUs
http://www.senate.gov/~clinton/contact
and more
January 2, 2008 at 11:42 am
harry said,
Somehow, MRAs must change this state of affairs; and, basically, there are two ways of doing this.
1. MRAs must come up with a way of ensuring that politicians who do *not* take up men’s issues will LOSE votes.
and/or
2. MRAs must come up with a way of ensuring that politicians who **do** take up men’s issues will GAIN votes.
And BOTH of the above strategies NECESSARILY involve swaying the public’s attitudes in the appropriate direction.
Thus, the solution to our problems really boils down to swaying the public’s attitudes in the appropriate direction.
Indeed, what other way is there?
There is no other way!
So, how does the MM sway the public’s attitude toward or away from a particular politician? - especially given its limited resources?
Well, I want to make two points that, in my view, would help to address this question.
1. 80+% of political activists/writers are ***men***. These ***men*** sway public opinion. As such, if the MM can persuade these political activist/writers - these MEN - to take on board their issues, then the MM can more effectively sway public opinion.
And, surely, the MM should be able to persuade many of these MEN political activists of their views.
Furthermore, of course, political activists are ACTIVE! They are not sheeple. And so getting the issues into their heads is particularly worthwhile.
2. The MM should make politicians aware that they will be attacked (or supported) on many OTHER ISSUES if they do not (or do) support men’s rights. In other words, they will not just be attacked (or supported) on the basis of the men’s rights issues alone.
And so, for example, if a politician does not support men’s rights, then MRAs should be attacking them on ANY sensitive issue that they can legitimately come up with.
Let me put it another way.
Telling a right-wing politician that you will stand outside his office with a large banner accusing him of failing to be concerned about father’s rights will not trouble him a jot. In fact, he might reckon that you will actually bring him more female votes! And so he will laugh at your pitiful attempts to discredit him.
However, if you told this same politician that because he has failed to support fathers’ rights then you will stand outside his office with a large banner accusing him of being a RACIST, he will feel threatened.
In other words, we need to use the same kind of tactics that the feminists have used for decades.
January 7, 2008 at 10:06 am
Bernard Chapin said,
Bernard
January 11, 2008 at 3:23 pm